This e-mail gave me lots of info in one place, with pictures, so this one time I’ll pass it on:

More clear evidence of the blessings of diversity!

This link is the FBI’s wanted list, for violent crimes – murders:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/fugitives/vc/murders/vc_murders.htm

And this is the FBI’s wanted list for violent crimes, additional (meaning other than murder, I guess):
?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/fugitives/vc/additional/vc_additional.htm

ME:

Please note that the mot waned include one who comitted “Murder with a Deadly Weapon” and one who is charged with”Murder and Failure to Appear.” I wonder if anyone but me finds anything to mull over about these?

Every time I take off my belt at airport security, I keep thinking that the terrorists should send the security personnel a letter of thanks. If they didn’t do that, the terrorists would like to.

What all that airport security guarantees is that if a terrorist wants to take over a plane, everyone on board is absolutely helpless against him.

The hundreds of thousands of people who have held concealed weapons permits for over a decade now have a MUCH better record with their guns than ANY police agency does. If you ever saw one permit holder do something stupid with his gun it would be on the front page coast-to-coast.

How many times have you seen or seen it reported the POLICE used their guns recklessly?

Why is this true?

Police work often destroys the nerves. A permit holder is not subject to the constant pressure a policeman is.

Ask any police psychiatrist whether every policeman he knows is fit to be armed twenty-four hours of every day.

They are all REQUIRED to be so armed. Look at THAT before you panic over “Letting citizens carry guns.”

If terrorists are enough of a threat to make strip-searching grandmothers and all the rest necessary, the simple fact is that permit holders are demonstrably FAR less dangerous than that.

And even the possibility of ONE permit holder with a gun would destroy all the plans a terrorist can make.

In an episode right out of Orwell’s novel 1984, the Austrian police found that the Brirtish historian David Irving was in that country and arested him for Holocaust Denial. He faces up to twenty years in prison.

Like other European countries, Austria requires that anyone extradicted to the United States be guaranteed to be exempt from capital punishmentand is on record as officially condemning the United States for having capital punishment.

So what respectable cosnervative has even whispered any criticism of Austria’s arrest of Irving for saying what he believes?

Nada.

Canada arrested and extradicted Ernst Zundel for Holocaust Denial to Germany. He will get six years as I understand it.

On November 1, 2005 a UN Resolution which was not voted on but passed unanimously outlaws Holocaust and requires every country inthe UN, including the United States, to extradite Holocaust Deniers.

How many respectable conservatives have mentioned this?

Nada. And they won’t.

When the cops come for them for supporting capital punishment, they will squeal as loudly as the pope did when the Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade.

But the Catholic wildly applauded when the Supreme Court openly declared both constitutional intent and indeed any reference to the Constitution unimportant by voiding all state miscegenation laws in 1968. That decision very openly made the Constitution anything the Supreme Court dfecides is “modern.”

Catholics are still whining about Roe vs. Wade, but do they say about the decision that gave the Supreme absolute power?

Nada. They approved it. The Church will fight for it.

So you have to be extradicted for expressing any doubts about the official version of the Holocaust.

What ARE the details you cannot deny?

Irving says about 300,000 Jews died in the Holocaust. He does not deny there was one, the way French historians almost unanimously denied the Ukrainian holocaust, the starvation where between five and 22 million Ukrainians died.

Alan Colmes has stated flatly that comparing the death of Ukrainians to the death of Jews is “trivializing the Holocaust.” So I may be subject to arrest for the paragraph above.

In Germany, if you deny that a full six million Jews died in the Holocaust, you face an automatic prison term which is not a minimum of two years. But I read an official French Government publication which states that only 5.3 million Jews “disappeared” under Hitler. That includes Madelein Albright.

This is pretty serious business. If you are to feel safe traveling in Europe, just how many Jews must you say died in the Holocaust?

To youm, that’s whom.

James Jackson Kilpatrick pointed out years ago that the United States Supreme Court was described as “handing up” a decision. I have no way of searching this out in a reasonable amount of time.

Today the courts “hand down” decisions. They “hand down” a decision that overruled an overwhelming vote by the California plebescite against giving benefits to illegal aliens. They “handed down” decisions that enforced racial busing against the wishes of eighty to ninety percent of the public, including a majority of blacks.

Before the World War II Generation gave us Obedience Training, “We the People of the United States of America and OUR posterity” were the only purpose of the Constitution. Before the World War II Generation was obedience-trained, “We the People of the United States of America” were the only source of authority the Constitution had.

But now the guys in robes hand DOWN decisions to us. They ARE the Constitution.

We are allowed to debate questions until the guys in the black robes hand a decision DOWN to us. Then they not only make the Final Decision, they can put us in jail for contempt of court if we discuss it.

I have made a LOT of laws and regulations in my time. I was sitting in a regulatory panel once, and we were laying out guidelines for rules under the Reagan Administration.

One Big Man, a real biggie, laid out the parameters. He said, “We must only have regulations we can actually enforce.”

This was serious stuff. Everybody in the room had the necessary grave expression on his face, except for one complete idiot who just had to say something stupid. So that idiot said,

“You know, God Almighty is still trying to enforce ten.”

They laughed. I will not tell you who that idiot was.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court decided that the MASSACHUSETTS STATE Constitution requires gay marriage.

The legal rule is that the Federal courts do not interpret STATE constitutions. So, from the point of view of Federal courts, the state constitution of Massachusetts requires gay marriage.

In 1968, twenty states had anti-miscegenation clauses in their constitutions. But the Supreme Court said that, regardless of the fact that all the states that ratified the Constitution and almost all the states that ratified the fourteenth amendment and had enforced anti-miscegenation laws, the United States Constitution did not allow anti-miscegenation laws.

There was NO question of constitutional intent in that 1968 decision. The Supreme Court made no pretense that they were interpreting original intent. They were making law, and they said so.

On the day that decision was issued, it was Federal law that constitutional intent means absolutely nothing. Unless you object to that decision, constitutional intent means nothing.

And no one dares to question it.

But in that case, the Supreme Court was interpreting the FEDERAL constitution. They agreed with state courts as the final word on the fact that state law banned interracial marriage, but they said the Federal Constitution overruled the state constitutions.

So the Massachusetts law stands.

The next question is whether a gay marriage performed in Massachusetts is valid in other states. The Federal Constitution requires every state to give “full faith and credit” to the acts of other states. But there is no enforcement clause in the “full faith and credit” statement. The Federal courts have consistently refused to enforce it.

The most important case relating to one state recognizing a marriage in another state was when North Carolina refused to recognize the easy Nevada divorce law. A person who was divorced in Nevada found that, according to the North Carolina Supreme Court, he was still married when he came back to North Carolina.

The Federal Supreme Court decided that the North Carolina decision was right, and that North Carolina had no obligation to recognize a Nevada divorce. So even today you can be legally married to two different people in two different states.

When a state refuses to extradite someone convicted in another state, that is a violation of “full faith and credit,” but they have done it hundreds of times.

So a gay couple is legally married as long as it stays inside the state of Massachusetts, and nothing less than a constitutional amendment is likely to change that.

My own opinion is that if you don’t want the courts to own the institution of marriage, you will have to condemn the 1968 decision first. And NOBODY has the guts to do that.

Every law student learns about “judge-made law.” No one talks about jury-made law.

For many years South Carolina had rigid limitations on serving alcoholic beverages. This was a huge handicap to restaurants.

While the rest of South Carolina enforced these restrictions, there were open bars in Charleston. It is said that in the 1940s Governor Johnston (“a personal and political dry”) once called the Mayor of Charleston and told him to close those bars.

The Mayor replied, “You close them.”

That was the end of the debate. Charleston stayed wet while the rest of the state played with liquor-by-the-drink laws.

Finally a bartender in Columbia hit upon a grand scheme. He sold SETUPS. He GAVE away little liquor bottles the customer could pour into the nonalcoholic setup he bought.

A judge ruled in his favor. The judge said, “There is no law against a man giving away his liquor.”

Liquor by the drink became legal. That’s why so many South Carolina bars give you those little bottles. But this was not judge-made law. This was jury-made law.

The reason the judge made that decision was because no jury would convict those who served mixed drinks any more. The juries had repealed the law.

Exactly the same thing has happened over and over in Anglo-Saxon history. The laws on the books in the early ninteenth century still made picking pockets a capital offense, but no jury would convict because they simply wouldn’t hang a ten-year-old child.

In 1834, Andrew Jackson did what no president since had the guts to do. The Supreme Court made a decision, and Jackson said, “The Supreme Court made this law. Now let the Supreme Court ENFORCE it.”

If any President since had had that kind of courage, there would be no judge-made law.

The unique characteristic of Anglo-Saxon law is that everyone has a right to a jury trial. The legislature may have passed the law unanimously, but it doesn’t mean a thing if the jury won’t enforce it.

When I was coming up, if anyone had sold drugs on school grounds, a parent would have blown his head off, in public, with a twelve-gauge shotgun loaded with 4s.

Under the law, that was cold-blooded, premeditated, first degree murder.

And no jury would have convicted him.

Back then, nobody sold drugs on school grounds.

Martha Stewart is being sent to Alderson Federal Prison. I used to live in Alderson. My doctor brother “dodged the draft” by being a prison doctor for two years with the Public Health Service. One of those years was spent at Alderson.

That was about 1956. Two of the prisoners there were Tokyo Rose, a Japanese-American who had broadcast from Japan during World War II, and Axis Sally, a German-American who had broadcast from Berlin during the same period.

They used to hold plays, and in one play Axis Sally played the part of George Washington.

Alderson is a lovely place, very near White Sulfur Springs Resort.

It was off season, and my Austrian bride and I happened to be in White Sulfur Springs. It was my wife’s first Thanksgiving in America and I asked where we might get some turkey and so forth. She told us to go to a certain country club.

It turned out that one of the members of that country club had been a traveling salesman. Many times he had been away from home on Thanksgiving. So he had retired to his home town and every Thanksgiving he set out a spread and drinks for absolutely anybody in White Sulfur Springs.

We ate, we got drunk, we met everybody.

As for Martha Stewart, if she had not said her conviction was a “right wing conspiracy,” I would be on her side.

I have seen a lot of prisons from the inside. Alderson was the best of them.

A rich liberal deserves much, much worse.

The media says that the Republicans lost California once and for all when they tried to stop giving welfare benefits to illegal aliens.

This assumes that Hispanics born in the United States are loyal to their fellow Hispanics who are illegal aliens than they are to other American citizens. The vote shows that is true.

In fact, every political expert assumes that Hispanic loyalties are to Hispanics, not to America, no matter where they were born or their grandparents were born or what citizenship they hold. That is a simple fact of political life.

So the American border guards and the INS or whatever it is called now are regarded as enemies by Hispanics. Most big cities openly refuse to cooperate with Federal immigration officials or enforce Federal law because of their growing Hispanic vote.

Today the way real Hispanic loyalty shows itself is the way every other anti-white sentiment shows itself. Both liberals and conservatives look to interracial marriage as the final solution to the white problem, which they call “the race problem.”

They propose no such immigration and integration solution to any “race problem” in Asia or Africa. There is no “race problem” in non-white countries. Solving the race problem means solving the white problem, in the same sense that Hitler referred to solving the Jewish Problem.

As I say, liberals and conservatives agree that the white problem must be solved once and for all.

But liberals are more outspokenly ANTI-white, and they want to take money from the whites and give it to the coloreds. So Hispanics, like every other minority, show their loyalty by using their votes to make California a solidly Democratic state. Schwarzenegger is a fluke.

To repeat, so far Hispanics are the liberals’ Faithful Colored Companions. But as Hispanics become a majority, they are not going to stand for that Anglo border that splits the Hipanic majorities — or potential majorities — away from each other at the Rio Grande.

So far, Hispanics have been pretty meek about the whole thing. But the time will soon come when they stop being nothing but Faithful Colored Companions to white liberals.

They will start ambushing their INS enemies.

That is the next logical step after major cities have declared that the INS is the enemy.

I have had my radio license for fifty years.

For many years, comercial radio networks have fought to keep down the numbers of frequencies allowed to “ham radio,” which means radio amateurs.

One of their arguments is that amateurs shouldn’t be using frequencies, just as private citizens shouldn’t have guns.

In the Florida hurricane right now, you will hear from time “amateur radio networks report…” As in every emergency, the hams have set up a network and they can communicate with a home generator and nothing else.

The media don’t like to talk about ham radio operators in emergencies, just as they don’t like to talk about how private gun owners stop looting in more cases than you could count.

But they’re all over the country, backing up the ones in Florida. The ARRL is the ham organization, and they can give you plenty of examples of what I am talking about on what ham radio does in emergencies.

My rig’s not up, but I’m still helping out a little.

See you later.

The judge says to a repeat felon, “Willy, you have been before me five times.” Willy knows the judge, his defense attorney knows the judge even better.

How about the prosecutor? He knows Willy, he works with the judge and the defense attorney all the time. He is trying to get something on his record to get him or his boss reelected.

What looks good? Well, a ninety percent conviction rate looks good. All the prosecutor needs to do is get Willy convicted of something. And he has very little time to do it. He needs to clear the docket. The judge needs to clear the docket. The defense attorney is in a hurry if Willy is pro bono and can’t pay him. If Willy is pro bono he wants a quick deal, too.

But if the defendant has money the defense attorney is the one person in the court who has time. He will appeal until Judgment Day. So he can make a deal with the prosecutor that gets another conviction on the record and gets Willy back on the streets as soon as possible so the judge can say, “Willy you have been before me six times.”

So what about the “members of he public” Willy may have killed and the ones he terrorizes?

They are “members of the public.” They are not human.

A person who is wrongfully executed is a Victim of the System. The hundred “members of the public” who are innocent and get killed today by the Willys are not considered human by the judge. His job is Justice, and he believes it. To the judge, it is Willy who is human, not the people who pay his salary.

So you have just spent one clock minute seeing how American Justice works. That’s all the time you’ve got. You’ve got other things to think about. The prosecutor knows that. The judge knows that. The entire legal system is based on the assumption that Willy and his defense attorney have all the time in the world, while “members of the public” have one minute.

That is why, to a judge, you are not human.

Woody Allen said, “Ninety percent of life is showing up.” Willy shows up. The judge shows up. The prosecutor shows up as little as he can. He’s a busy man. “Members of the public” have thirty seconds to listen to a television sound bite where the guy running for Attorney General says he got ninety percent convictions.

That’s why, to the legal system, you are not human.